Van Butsen

The slow build up Iceland chant is awesome! Brings a really great atmosphere!

Bloody Jose, thinks he can just go out and buy some Magic and be done with it

I think Iceland is a danger game for England. I feel England need a team that will come out and play a bit so there is a little more going forward for some passes. Otherwise it's going to be very similar to the Slovakia game, round and round the box with no crosses.

Loan extended into next season, announced on the CFC twitter account.

The reports are all contradictory. How can their be a wage agreement but no fee agreement? Not saying it won't happen but these reports are meaningless

BM making a lot of noise to sign him permanently for a record fee

Won't let me log back in, can someone tell me how badly I'm doing?

I can't remember where it was, I'd have to dig it up. May well have been from a poster on here in the new stadium thread.

England will do better against better opposition I think, hope Woy holds his nerve and plays a similar team

Just on the new stadium deal, I remember reading that Roman was paying for it entirely out of his pocket. Therefore, it shouldn't affect our transfer dealings as he doesn't really bank roll many/any of them any more?

Well it seems your leveling the loan systems failure or perceived failure at the loan system itself. Which is perfectly acceptable, but I don't think it's the case and I don't think it's a scatter-gun approach. I'd argue a lot of the players haven't progressed beyond their potential (which is what we signed them for) and haven't taken their chances when they were given. I also think there is a big difference with sending a recently graduated youth player out on loan to that of sending the more seasoned players like Marin, Moses etc out on loan. This section also applies to Chelsbears post: Sending the seasoned players out on loan will in all reality, devalue the player and Chelsea would be well aware of this. If they were to have an outstanding season at your Roma's or PSV's then I think we would be more inclined to bring them back into the fold. We wouldn't sell them and that would be the only way their price went up.. it would have to be a really really outstanding season too. If they did nothing well we certainly won't get the same we paid for him, but I'm also fine with that. We haven't got them wasting a bench spot and we aren't paying their full wages (I'm sure we negotiate some great deals on the loan table when it comes to wages). So for me it's an obvious solution. No one has yet had a great season and returned to the first team, perhaps that's down to the players poor performance, perhaps our current managers decision, but I don't think it's a fault of them being on loan. This Boufal player I've never heard of, there are also big name players we are in the market for and linked with and we don't do too bad at getting young South American talent for a fraction of what they would cost in Europe. So I don't think it's scatter-gun, it's calculated and some of them just don't work. I can certainly think of some big money transfers that haven't worked either, so even that approach is going to have repercussions if they don't succeed. I'm not saying there aren't flaws in the system, there are and may 30 is too many? But then again, Juventus had 60 players on loan last season and they're doing alright.

I don't get what the waste of resources is though? The idea is to integrate these players into the first team, so it is an investment in the first team. If some of them don't work out and go out on loan I don't see the problem, I don't expect our recruiters to find an Eden Hazard or an Azpilicueta every single time. Do you think the scouts are lowering the bar intentionally or have been directed to do so from Chelsea? Do you think because we have Moses, Salah and Cudrado (similiar players) on loan that we could have signed just one and that would immediately make them or someone else perform better?

Why does having 'dead wood' on loan really bother you that much though?

Nope, was just quoting the poster above me. Matic is the reason we won it and the reason we didn't, super super important,

I'm not talking about form, I'm talking about liability issues that can't be iorned out. I'm also not talking about Matic, just in general

It would be a flawed mentality if we were to enter into each transfer market only going after players who may solve immediate issues. Have to have one eye on the the following season/s as well, otherwise we'll miss deals we could have made and create more problems down the track.

If we are selling liabilities I have no problem with selling to our closest rivals.

It's also funny how it's the posters who usually complain about the lack of relevance who are now being irrelevant.

In all honestly, Portugal have looked the most exciting and fluent team in all the games I've seen, Their bench players often make an impact, at least aesthetically, and age doesn't seem to be a problem for their coach

Anyone watching the Italy game? The stats look diabolical

He'd never seen him and didn't give him a chance. My bet he is still yet to see him play 90 minutes. Training is entirely different to a game http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3230709/Jose-Mourinho-reveals-signed-Papy-Djilobodji-recommendation-Chelsea-boss-admits-3m-deal-not-choice.html

I don't think Mourinho even considered him. He'd never seen him play when signed. I don't think he could have made an accurate decision on the players current or future ability. In all seriousness Jon has probably seen him play more than Mourinho, though there is obvious bias, I'm only going to count 1 manager as not rating him so far. Mourinho based his decision of absolutely nothing, as his style and it works for him most of the time.

Wages believed to be a sticking point at the moment, read that on football-italia and have absolutely no idea how credible they are. If it's got to wages then a fee must have been agreed I presume?

These Benteke rumors aren't going away

Only legitimate thing I've read in here